justhandled_redirect_map_preflight

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the cost of $0.05 USDC on Base mainnet, which is not obvious from the schema. It also lists the validation categories. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it may have, or what the output looks like. The cost disclosure adds value, but the lack of other behavioral details leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the cost note. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resource, the key checks, and the cost. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information. This is an ideal length for a tool description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the clear purpose, the description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, list of errors), how parameters are used (especially baseline_sources), or any prerequisites (like network access or wallet funding). The cost and check list are useful, but without parameter guidance and return format, the agent may struggle to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of the 'redirects' array or 'baseline_sources' parameter beyond a vague hint in 'missing legacy sources.' This does not clarify the structure, format, or meaning of the parameters. Users would have to infer that 'redirects' contains objects with source/destination (from schema names) and that 'baseline_sources' might be a list of expected sources, but this is not stated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly specifies the resource ('redirect map') and the exact checks performed (invalid targets, self-redirects, chains, loops, missing legacy sources). This distinguishes it from sibling preflight tools by naming the target domain and the concrete validation scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: you use this tool when you need to validate a redirect map. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The 'preflight' suffix and the list of checks provide implied context, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or non-use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.